Division Description Changes — Business — Consideration of Legislation — 30th Nov 2021

Change	Division
senate vote 2021-11-30#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2021-12-10 10:31:17	Title ~~Business — Consideration of Legislation~~ Business - Consideration of Legislation - Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 Description ~~<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p>~~ ~~<p>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021, as circulated.</p>~~ ~~<p>Leave not granted.</p>~~ ~~<p>Pursuant to contingent notice of motion in my name, I move:</p>~~ <p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021.</p> <p>Federal ICAC now. Federal ICAC now. There are just so many things that are going on that are undermining public confidence in our system of government—in the way in which this building operates and in the way in which the federal government operates—and we have to address that as a matter of urgency.</p> <p>We've had sports rorts. We've had car park rorts. We've had jobs for mates. We've had water purchases. We've had blind trusts. All of this goes to an erosion of confidence in our system of government. We note that in the states this doesn't happen. It doesn't happen or it rarely happens because there is a strong watchdog that makes people very, very cautious about doing anything that would give rise to a referral. The problem we've got and the reason I'm seeking to suspend standing orders to deal with this bill is that we have waited patiently, after a promise from the Prime Minister that he would bring legislation to this chamber, to the parliament, to deal with an ICAC—a promise prior to the last election. And the election is closing in. We've seen the sitting calendar for next year. Before the election, we have 10 sitting days; that's it. We can't wait any longer.</p> <p>Last week, for my pushing for this to be dealt with immediately, Senator Ruston called me 'a procedure wonk', and actually I take some pride in being called a procedure wonk. I do follow procedure. I do understand the standing orders. I do read <i>Odgers</i>, however sad people may feel that is. The fact is that I'm proud of this institution and I'm proud of the way in which it operates. And it doesn't give me pleasure to come in here and ask to interrupt government business time, which was the complaint that was made by Senator Ruston, but I'm doing so in circumstances when the government promised to do this and haven't. They promised to do this in their time in office and haven't, and that ultimately forces people like me, people like Senator Griff and Senator Lambie, and Labor and the Greens, who supported me last week, to try to force a change in thinking and get the Liberal Party to understand how important this is.</p> <p>Again, they set the agenda; they said that they would bring an integrity commission bill into this parliament, as a promise in the election campaign, and we are running out of time. That's the reason why we need to suspend. That's the reason why we need to get onto the Dr Helen Haines bill—the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill—that I've introduced into the Senate. This bill has the endorsement of a number of external and independent experts in integrity. Again, I don't like interrupting government business time, but they promised to give time to this and they haven't.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p>~~ <p>Senator Patrick, in your contribution last week you acknowledged that you had sought to bring this bill on for debate last week—through you, Mr President. The will of the chamber at that time was that the chamber didn't want to bring this bill on. So now you come in here and try to hide behind the fact that you can somehow amend what you previously stood for, just to bring on something because you've decided that you want to come in here and seriously disrupt the chamber. I've always had a great deal of respect for your policy wonkiness, Senator Patrick, and your procedural wonkiness—probably more so than anything—because you have always been a great stickler in this place for procedure. To come in here this week, after the will of the chamber last week was that it wasn't to be brought on for debate, and seek to do it again probably undermines the purity of your position when it comes to procedural matters. I would draw to your attention the flaw in your argument that you just put forward.</p> <p>As you know, Senator Patrick, it is the prerogative of the government to set the agenda. We've got a very serious agenda of legislation that we would like to put before this chamber—and I thank the chamber for the nine bills we were able to get through this place last week. Despite the number of times that suspensions were sought to waste time, particularly by those at the other end of the chamber, we still managed to get nine bills through, and some of them were really, really important. Something like the funder-of-last-resort amendments to the redress bill that we put through this place last week were super important, and I was really proud that we were table to do that. I thank the chamber for that, but we could do more if you would stop with these stunts of wasting time on these sorts of processes. I don't particularly want to be standing here having to defend this situation when we could be talking about substantive legislation that's part of the program that we have put forward. We were completely transparent last Friday about the agenda that we wanted to put through, but here we are again talking about a procedural motion.</p> <p>On the substantive matter that you're seeking to bring on today, Senator Patrick, the government have been particularly clear around the fact that we issued an exposure draft of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill, along with explanatory memorandum. It was provided to the other side as this is a really important issue that we hope we might be able to get consensus on. I'm sure all members of this government would be more than happy to sit down and get agreement about bringing something forward, but what we will not be bringing forward, Senator Patrick, is a bill that deals with what is a very serious issue—that is, dealing with corruption in public places—and seeks to turn around the basic premise of Australia's legal system, and that is that somebody should be presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty.</p> <p>To be proven guilty by the court of public opinion, by the mechanism by which a particular commission is put forward or designed, is not something that this government will support. We will support an Integrity Commission that allows us to root out serious corrupt behaviour, but we will not allow an Integrity Commission to be turned into a political witch-hunt tool. The mechanism of suggesting that politicians can refer other politicians under a model that we've seen put into this place, that politicians can refer other politicians to an Integrity Commission, is a complete outrage. I believe fundamentally in the law of natural justice, and that is that everybody in this country should be considered innocent until proven guilty.</p> <p>It is completely unfair to have a commission that does not do what it's designed to do. A commission should be designed to root out serious corruption in public places. It shouldn't be designed to duplicate the current processes that are in place in many other integrity-type bodies that sit within the Commonwealth space, not the least of which is one that we in this place all have to adhere to, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. There are a number of authorities—including the AFP and the Ombudsman—that already undertake a level of integrity. We are more than happy to support an integrity commission that roots out serious corruption but we will not be party to one that turns it into a witch-hunt that means people who are innocent are not afforded that privilege.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p>~~ <p>What did we just hear: a 'political witch-hunt'? Last week it was the 'Spanish Inquisition'. I think the Prime Minister called it a 'kangaroo court'. This government is running scared from an integrity commission with teeth, because they know that half of their cabinet have been embroiled in integrity scandals of one form or another and that a corruption watchdog with teeth might cause them a spot of bother. That's why we haven't seen the government's version of an integrity commission. I don't think the Prime Minister ever intended to follow through on his pre-election promise last election to deliver an integrity commission, because you can't believe a word he says. Once again this is a failure to follow through on a commitment. I think we're back in the 'non-core promise' days of John Howard.</p> <p>The Centre for Public Integrity have looked at all of the various models and found that the government's version is the weakest of all existing corruption watchdogs and the weakest of all proposed models. They found that the Greens' version was the strongest. Our bill, I might add, passed the Senate two years ago. It is the most progressed integrity commission this parliament has and, if the Prime Minister had had the guts to bring it on for debate and a vote in the House, we could have had a corruption watchdog two years ago.</p> <p>There's a reason he's not bringing it on. He knows half his cabinet would be embroiled in it. He would rather have a watchdog that is in fact toothless and asleep, that commentators have described as 'a protection racket' for MPs. Now they're trying to shift the blame, saying that they're too scared to bring in their own bill because it might not get passed. Sorry, but this is a level of ridiculousness I didn't expect. But here we are.</p> <p>We have a strong bill, which has passed the Senate. We have a number of Independents who have drafted their own strong bills, very similar to our bill. We don't mind whose name is on the bill, as long as it has teeth, is independent, can hold public hearings and has a genuinely dissuasive effect on corruption. So we welcome the interventions by the Independents and smaller parties in this space. The Greens have been pushing for a corruption watchdog since 2009 federally. We remain the final jurisdiction that doesn't have one; every other state and territory has one. We've needed one since long before 2009, but it took the Prime Minister until three years ago to agree this wasn't a niche issue. Yet we've seen no progress since then. In fact, the minister belled the cat over the weekend on ABC's <i>Insiders</i>there have now been at least three rounds of consultation, but this has not resulted in any change to the government's bill. They are using sham consultation as a delay tactic. They have no intention of strengthening their weak model, because they don't want a corruption watchdog to work; it would embroil half their cabinet.</p> <p>I don't think we will see this government's bill and I don't think they will bring on my bill for debate in the House. The bravery of Helen Haines and Bridget Archer last week in the House unfortunately failed on a technicality. This government is in the minority in blocking a corruption watchdog. Many other people in this place want one. It's just One Nation and the coalition that are standing in the way of a watchdog with teeth.</p> <p>Initially, my bill passed because One Nation abstained. Since then, we've seen that One Nation don't want my bill brought on in the House, and they now don't even want Senator Patrick's bill debated nor that of Helen Haines, the member for Indi. I don't know what cosy deal One Nation have done with the coalition. They've certainly done many a deal in years gone by and they are effectively just a rubber stamp for this coalition's awful agenda. But the Australian people deserve better. They deserve a corruption watchdog with teeth and they deserve a system that isn't corrupt. They deserve a parliament that works in their interests, that isn't dominated and influenced by corporate donors and vested interests and that cleans up the reasons for corruption. They deserve a parliament that ends the big money that's been running this show, that stops the revolving door of lobbyists and that acts based on science, based on the public interest and based on the interests of the community. It is not too much to ask. The people deserve a corruption watchdog and, even more than that, a system that isn't corrupt. Let's vote for that. Let's put the Greens in the balance of power to deliver that.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ The same number of senators voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-11-30.5.2) introduced by South Australian Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Independent) to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) - to let a vote happen. Senator Patrick had wanted to bring forward consideration of the [Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1321) so that it could be debated this year. ### Motion text *> That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of** the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021.*

~~Rex Patrick~~
~~I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021, as circulated.~~
~~Leave not granted.~~
~~Pursuant to contingent notice of motion in my name, I move:~~
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021.
Federal ICAC now. Federal ICAC now. There are just so many things that are going on that are undermining public confidence in our system of government—in the way in which this building operates and in the way in which the federal government operates—and we have to address that as a matter of urgency.
We've had sports rorts. We've had car park rorts. We've had jobs for mates. We've had water purchases. We've had blind trusts. All of this goes to an erosion of confidence in our system of government. We note that in the states this doesn't happen. It doesn't happen or it rarely happens because there is a strong watchdog that makes people very, very cautious about doing anything that would give rise to a referral. The problem we've got and the reason I'm seeking to suspend standing orders to deal with this bill is that we have waited patiently, after a promise from the Prime Minister that he would bring legislation to this chamber, to the parliament, to deal with an ICAC—a promise prior to the last election. And the election is closing in. We've seen the sitting calendar for next year. Before the election, we have 10 sitting days; that's it. We can't wait any longer.
Last week, for my pushing for this to be dealt with immediately, Senator Ruston called me 'a procedure wonk', and actually I take some pride in being called a procedure wonk. I do follow procedure. I do understand the standing orders. I do read Odgers, however sad people may feel that is. The fact is that I'm proud of this institution and I'm proud of the way in which it operates. And it doesn't give me pleasure to come in here and ask to interrupt government business time, which was the complaint that was made by Senator Ruston, but I'm doing so in circumstances when the government promised to do this and haven't. They promised to do this in their time in office and haven't, and that ultimately forces people like me, people like Senator Griff and Senator Lambie, and Labor and the Greens, who supported me last week, to try to force a change in thinking and get the Liberal Party to understand how important this is.
Again, they set the agenda; they said that they would bring an integrity commission bill into this parliament, as a promise in the election campaign, and we are running out of time. That's the reason why we need to suspend. That's the reason why we need to get onto the Dr Helen Haines bill—the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill—that I've introduced into the Senate. This bill has the endorsement of a number of external and independent experts in integrity. Again, I don't like interrupting government business time, but they promised to give time to this and they haven't.
~~Anne Ruston~~
Senator Patrick, in your contribution last week you acknowledged that you had sought to bring this bill on for debate last week—through you, Mr President. The will of the chamber at that time was that the chamber didn't want to bring this bill on. So now you come in here and try to hide behind the fact that you can somehow amend what you previously stood for, just to bring on something because you've decided that you want to come in here and seriously disrupt the chamber. I've always had a great deal of respect for your policy wonkiness, Senator Patrick, and your procedural wonkiness—probably more so than anything—because you have always been a great stickler in this place for procedure. To come in here this week, after the will of the chamber last week was that it wasn't to be brought on for debate, and seek to do it again probably undermines the purity of your position when it comes to procedural matters. I would draw to your attention the flaw in your argument that you just put forward.
As you know, Senator Patrick, it is the prerogative of the government to set the agenda. We've got a very serious agenda of legislation that we would like to put before this chamber—and I thank the chamber for the nine bills we were able to get through this place last week. Despite the number of times that suspensions were sought to waste time, particularly by those at the other end of the chamber, we still managed to get nine bills through, and some of them were really, really important. Something like the funder-of-last-resort amendments to the redress bill that we put through this place last week were super important, and I was really proud that we were table to do that. I thank the chamber for that, but we could do more if you would stop with these stunts of wasting time on these sorts of processes. I don't particularly want to be standing here having to defend this situation when we could be talking about substantive legislation that's part of the program that we have put forward. We were completely transparent last Friday about the agenda that we wanted to put through, but here we are again talking about a procedural motion.
On the substantive matter that you're seeking to bring on today, Senator Patrick, the government have been particularly clear around the fact that we issued an exposure draft of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill, along with explanatory memorandum. It was provided to the other side as this is a really important issue that we hope we might be able to get consensus on. I'm sure all members of this government would be more than happy to sit down and get agreement about bringing something forward, but what we will not be bringing forward, Senator Patrick, is a bill that deals with what is a very serious issue—that is, dealing with corruption in public places—and seeks to turn around the basic premise of Australia's legal system, and that is that somebody should be presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty.
To be proven guilty by the court of public opinion, by the mechanism by which a particular commission is put forward or designed, is not something that this government will support. We will support an Integrity Commission that allows us to root out serious corrupt behaviour, but we will not allow an Integrity Commission to be turned into a political witch-hunt tool. The mechanism of suggesting that politicians can refer other politicians under a model that we've seen put into this place, that politicians can refer other politicians to an Integrity Commission, is a complete outrage. I believe fundamentally in the law of natural justice, and that is that everybody in this country should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
It is completely unfair to have a commission that does not do what it's designed to do. A commission should be designed to root out serious corruption in public places. It shouldn't be designed to duplicate the current processes that are in place in many other integrity-type bodies that sit within the Commonwealth space, not the least of which is one that we in this place all have to adhere to, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority. There are a number of authorities—including the AFP and the Ombudsman—that already undertake a level of integrity. We are more than happy to support an integrity commission that roots out serious corruption but we will not be party to one that turns it into a witch-hunt that means people who are innocent are not afforded that privilege.
~~Larissa Waters~~
What did we just hear: a 'political witch-hunt'? Last week it was the 'Spanish Inquisition'. I think the Prime Minister called it a 'kangaroo court'. This government is running scared from an integrity commission with teeth, because they know that half of their cabinet have been embroiled in integrity scandals of one form or another and that a corruption watchdog with teeth might cause them a spot of bother. That's why we haven't seen the government's version of an integrity commission. I don't think the Prime Minister ever intended to follow through on his pre-election promise last election to deliver an integrity commission, because you can't believe a word he says. Once again this is a failure to follow through on a commitment. I think we're back in the 'non-core promise' days of John Howard.
The Centre for Public Integrity have looked at all of the various models and found that the government's version is the weakest of all existing corruption watchdogs and the weakest of all proposed models. They found that the Greens' version was the strongest. Our bill, I might add, passed the Senate two years ago. It is the most progressed integrity commission this parliament has and, if the Prime Minister had had the guts to bring it on for debate and a vote in the House, we could have had a corruption watchdog two years ago.
There's a reason he's not bringing it on. He knows half his cabinet would be embroiled in it. He would rather have a watchdog that is in fact toothless and asleep, that commentators have described as 'a protection racket' for MPs. Now they're trying to shift the blame, saying that they're too scared to bring in their own bill because it might not get passed. Sorry, but this is a level of ridiculousness I didn't expect. But here we are.
We have a strong bill, which has passed the Senate. We have a number of Independents who have drafted their own strong bills, very similar to our bill. We don't mind whose name is on the bill, as long as it has teeth, is independent, can hold public hearings and has a genuinely dissuasive effect on corruption. So we welcome the interventions by the Independents and smaller parties in this space. The Greens have been pushing for a corruption watchdog since 2009 federally. We remain the final jurisdiction that doesn't have one; every other state and territory has one. We've needed one since long before 2009, but it took the Prime Minister until three years ago to agree this wasn't a niche issue. Yet we've seen no progress since then. In fact, the minister belled the cat over the weekend on ABC's Insidersthere have now been at least three rounds of consultation, but this has not resulted in any change to the government's bill. They are using sham consultation as a delay tactic. They have no intention of strengthening their weak model, because they don't want a corruption watchdog to work; it would embroil half their cabinet.
I don't think we will see this government's bill and I don't think they will bring on my bill for debate in the House. The bravery of Helen Haines and Bridget Archer last week in the House unfortunately failed on a technicality. This government is in the minority in blocking a corruption watchdog. Many other people in this place want one. It's just One Nation and the coalition that are standing in the way of a watchdog with teeth.
Initially, my bill passed because One Nation abstained. Since then, we've seen that One Nation don't want my bill brought on in the House, and they now don't even want Senator Patrick's bill debated nor that of Helen Haines, the member for Indi. I don't know what cosy deal One Nation have done with the coalition. They've certainly done many a deal in years gone by and they are effectively just a rubber stamp for this coalition's awful agenda. But the Australian people deserve better. They deserve a corruption watchdog with teeth and they deserve a system that isn't corrupt. They deserve a parliament that works in their interests, that isn't dominated and influenced by corporate donors and vested interests and that cleans up the reasons for corruption. They deserve a parliament that ends the big money that's been running this show, that stops the revolving door of lobbyists and that acts based on science, based on the public interest and based on the interests of the community. It is not too much to ask. The people deserve a corruption watchdog and, even more than that, a system that isn't corrupt. Let's vote for that. Let's put the Greens in the balance of power to deliver that.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
The same number of senators voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-11-30.5.2) introduced by South Australian Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Independent) to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) - to let a vote happen. Senator Patrick had wanted to bring forward consideration of the [Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1321) so that it could be debated this year.
### Motion text
> *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021.*